peacefan
Gold Member
i had fox news open just now in my browser,
and a piece floated by where first fox news exposed the Democrats for blocking funding to border enforcement agencies, and other left-leaning Americans about how they thought border enforcement agencies are treated as a private prison cash cow system.
however, the same Democrats and their supporters also did not know what to do with asylum seekers if, like they want at the moment, they'd stop imprisoning asylum seekers.
this seems like a funding problem to me.
not so much a problem of who has the winning idea(s), because the winning idea, in my view, is a mix of the ideas presented by all Democrats and Republicans.
even more so than it normally is. by a lot.
for starters, you'd need to, as a country, tie immigration opportunities directly to what your economy needs any given year.
then, you'd need to improve living conditions in your asylum seeker temporary housing, with not just the basics covered (like sanitary, non-depressing living arrangements), but also things like planning support for an asylum seeker's path towards citizenship, as well as English classes[1] and education programs to teach newcomers the basics of American society compared to the society they came from.
and you'd need to provide government-run follow up support for these approved-and-processed asylum seekers.
in the US, this might be best organized as a new kind of service for a new kind of private "prison" industry, one with costs and pay just like any other service (like locking people up).
[1] because the idea is, you'd only accept people into your facilities who display the current list of requirements for asylum seeking (economic / professional background compatibility, so they're sure to get and hold a job that actually pays the rent and other living expenses),
and you'd probably need to bump the minimum wage upwards some more, but you can consider that a secondary project, one to complete whenever the economy needs an influx of unskilled labor forces.
and asylum seekers who do not fit the list of requirements, which should be regularly advertised in countries of asylum seekers' origin using US government money (the cost to American society, especially if this situation does not get fixed within the next few years, could easily get a lot higher),
you'd need to ship those straight back, within 24 hours.
if necessary, considerable pressure needs to be applied long-term to the countries of origin, to force them to take care of these returned asylum seekers in a humane way.
a President of the US, as well as other people in office, can fuel what's in the international media via twitter these days, and let's use that improvement to keep an eye on situations like these, where the problem extends beyond it getting fixed in the US, and could return to the US in a number of ways worse than reputation loss.
So if say Guatamala messes up their treatment of their returned asylum seekers, you'd expose that once a week at least from the US via twitter, in a way that is proven to get TV mass media's attention as well. Let's see if they (TV stations) pick up on such things, because they *SHOULD*, per moral obligations of their entire industry.
and finally, the Democrats' talking point about addressing the root causes of migration.
supplying foreign aid to countries to help them create less desperate asylum seekers.
foreign aid, is often siphoned by the corrupt.
i'd advise against sending money to other countries to help them address crime that creates asylum seekers ( [2] gangs terrorizing civilians in countries like Guatamala, taking their sons as soldiers and their daughters as forced sex workers, for instance),
i'd send over police and military advisers and only fund law enforcement of other nations when your own people clearly think it'll relieve pressure on the US.
but whenever possible, i'd use international opinion, and advisers where you know better from experience, to get countries to clean up themselves.
foreign aid just spells "take me and keep the problem going at the same time" to too many in nations that can't exactly be trusted to provide non-corrupt governing, as evidenced by the background of the asylum seekers[2].
that's all i got for now.
i'll leave you with an important question, since solving this will take time and effort.. :
is the border crisis, left unsolved, a long-term nuisance, or an actual threat?
and a piece floated by where first fox news exposed the Democrats for blocking funding to border enforcement agencies, and other left-leaning Americans about how they thought border enforcement agencies are treated as a private prison cash cow system.
however, the same Democrats and their supporters also did not know what to do with asylum seekers if, like they want at the moment, they'd stop imprisoning asylum seekers.
this seems like a funding problem to me.
not so much a problem of who has the winning idea(s), because the winning idea, in my view, is a mix of the ideas presented by all Democrats and Republicans.
even more so than it normally is. by a lot.
for starters, you'd need to, as a country, tie immigration opportunities directly to what your economy needs any given year.
then, you'd need to improve living conditions in your asylum seeker temporary housing, with not just the basics covered (like sanitary, non-depressing living arrangements), but also things like planning support for an asylum seeker's path towards citizenship, as well as English classes[1] and education programs to teach newcomers the basics of American society compared to the society they came from.
and you'd need to provide government-run follow up support for these approved-and-processed asylum seekers.
in the US, this might be best organized as a new kind of service for a new kind of private "prison" industry, one with costs and pay just like any other service (like locking people up).
[1] because the idea is, you'd only accept people into your facilities who display the current list of requirements for asylum seeking (economic / professional background compatibility, so they're sure to get and hold a job that actually pays the rent and other living expenses),
and you'd probably need to bump the minimum wage upwards some more, but you can consider that a secondary project, one to complete whenever the economy needs an influx of unskilled labor forces.
and asylum seekers who do not fit the list of requirements, which should be regularly advertised in countries of asylum seekers' origin using US government money (the cost to American society, especially if this situation does not get fixed within the next few years, could easily get a lot higher),
you'd need to ship those straight back, within 24 hours.
if necessary, considerable pressure needs to be applied long-term to the countries of origin, to force them to take care of these returned asylum seekers in a humane way.
a President of the US, as well as other people in office, can fuel what's in the international media via twitter these days, and let's use that improvement to keep an eye on situations like these, where the problem extends beyond it getting fixed in the US, and could return to the US in a number of ways worse than reputation loss.
So if say Guatamala messes up their treatment of their returned asylum seekers, you'd expose that once a week at least from the US via twitter, in a way that is proven to get TV mass media's attention as well. Let's see if they (TV stations) pick up on such things, because they *SHOULD*, per moral obligations of their entire industry.
and finally, the Democrats' talking point about addressing the root causes of migration.
supplying foreign aid to countries to help them create less desperate asylum seekers.
foreign aid, is often siphoned by the corrupt.
i'd advise against sending money to other countries to help them address crime that creates asylum seekers ( [2] gangs terrorizing civilians in countries like Guatamala, taking their sons as soldiers and their daughters as forced sex workers, for instance),
i'd send over police and military advisers and only fund law enforcement of other nations when your own people clearly think it'll relieve pressure on the US.
but whenever possible, i'd use international opinion, and advisers where you know better from experience, to get countries to clean up themselves.
foreign aid just spells "take me and keep the problem going at the same time" to too many in nations that can't exactly be trusted to provide non-corrupt governing, as evidenced by the background of the asylum seekers[2].
that's all i got for now.
i'll leave you with an important question, since solving this will take time and effort.. :
is the border crisis, left unsolved, a long-term nuisance, or an actual threat?
